DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note by the Examiner
For clarity, references to specific claim numbers are presented in bold. Cited claim limitations are presented in bold the first time they are associated with a particular prior art disclosing the cited limitations, and subsequent reference to the already disclosed claim limitations are presented un-bolded. Certain elements from prior art which are not required by the claims are also presented bolded if they are particularly pertinent to understanding how the references are being combined. Item-to-item matching and examiner explanations for 102 &/or 103 rejections are provided in parenthesis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 7, it is indefinite because it is contradictory to have the dropped additives be a part of the additive module while also removed from the adhesive layer (where the additive module is located) to form dimpled microstructures. Therefore, only the dimpled microstructures will be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No.: US 20230395634 A1), hereinafter as Lee’A, in view of Lee et al. (Patent No.: US 11735562 B2), hereinafter as Lee’B, in further view of Nakasato et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100264552 A1), hereinafter as Nakasato.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image A: closeup of Lee’A Fig. 4, showcasing inner side and outer side of support layer 4 and dimpled microstructures.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image B: closeup of Nakasato Fig. 10, showcasing various additives.
With regards to claim 1, Lee’A teaches an optical device, comprising: an electronic component (see Lee’A Fig. 3, sensor chip 2; Lee’A [0024]), wherein a top surface of the electronic component has an optical region (see Lee’A Fig. 3, sensing region 211; Lee’A [0028]) and a carrying region (see Lee’A Fig. 3, carrying region 212; Lee’A [0028]) that surrounds the optical region (see Lee’A Fig. 3); a ring-shaped support (see Lee’A Fig. 3, supporting layer 4; and see Lee’A [0024]: “a supporting layer 4 having a ring shape and being disposed on the sensor chip 2,”); and a light-permeable layer (see Lee’A Fig. 3, light-permeable layer 5; Lee’A [0024]) having an outer surface (see Lee’A Fig. 3, outer surface 53; Lee’A [0035]) and an inner surface (see Lee’A Fig. 3, inner surface 54; Lee’A [0035]) that is opposite to the outer surface (see Lee’A Fig. 3), wherein the light-permeable layer is disposed on the ring-shaped support (see Lee’A Fig. 3), and the inner surface of the light-permeable layer, the ring-shaped support, and the electronic component jointly define an enclosed space (see Lee’A Fig. 3 and Lee’A [0035]: “The light-permeable layer 5 (e.g., the inner surface 54) is disposed on the supporting layer 4, so that the light-permeable layer 5, the inner roughened surface 41 of the supporting layer 4, and the sensor chip 2 jointly define an enclosed space E.”).
Lee’A does not teach that the ring-shaped support includes an adhesive layer.
Lee’B teaches an adhesive layer (see Lee’B Fig. 2, supporting adhesive layer 4; Lee’B col. 3, ln. 66) having a ring shape (see Lee’B Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the supporting layer of Lee’A with the adhesive material taught by Lee’B in order to promote bonding between the electronic component and the light-permeable layer.
Together, Lee’A and Lee’B teach a ring-shaped support (see Lee’A Fig. 3, supporting layer 4; and see Lee’A [0024]: “a supporting layer 4 having a ring shape and being disposed on the sensor chip 2,”) including: an adhesive layer (see Lee’A Fig. 3, supporting layer 4; where it shares the same adhesive material as supporting adhesive layer 4 of Lee’B) having a ring shape (see Lee’A [0024]) and being disposed on the carrying region of the electronic component (see Lee’A [0030]: “The supporting layer 4 is disposed on the carrying region 212 of the sensor chip 2 and surrounds the sensing region 211.”), wherein the adhesive layer has an inner side (see Image A) and an outer side (see Image A) that is opposite to the inner side (see Image A).
Lee’A and Lee’B do not teach an additive module being incompletely soluble in the adhesive layer and including: a plurality of inner additives entirely embedded in the adhesive layer and arranged away from the inner side and the outer side of the adhesive layer; and a plurality of shape-formation additives entirely embedded in the adhesive layer, wherein the shape-formation additives are arranged adjacent to the inner side of the adhesive layer, so as to enable the inner side of the adhesive layer to form a plurality of protruding microstructures.
Nakasato teaches an additive module (see Nakasato Fig. 10, particle filler 37; Nakasato [0142]) being incompletely soluble (because particle filler 37 comprises of silica or alumina (see Nakasato [0142]), and silica and alumina aren’t soluble in resin, so the particle filler 37 is incompletely soluble in the resin layer.) in an adhesive layer (see Nakasato Fig. 10, resin layer 36; Nakasato [0051]) and including: a plurality of inner additives (see Image B) entirely embedded in the adhesive layer (see Nakasato Fig. 10 and Image B) and arranged away from the inner side and the outer side of the adhesive layer (see Nakasato Fig. 10 and Image B); and a plurality of shape-formation additives (see Image B) entirely embedded in the adhesive layer (see Image B), wherein the shape-formation additives are arranged adjacent to the inner side of the adhesive layer (see Nakasato Fig. 10), so as to enable the inner side of the adhesive layer to form a plurality of protruding microstructures (see Nakasato Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the additive module taught by Nakasato to the adhesive layer of the combined device of Lee’A and Lee’B in order to promote structural strength in the ring-shape support while also providing some light scattering abilities.
With regards to claim 2, Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato teach the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the additive module (see Nakasato Fig. 10, particle filler 37) further includes a plurality of exposed additives (see Image B) each having an embedded portion and an exposed portion (see Image B), wherein the embedded portion of each of the exposed additives is embedded in the adhesive layer (see Nakasato Fig. 10), and the exposed portion of each of the exposed additives is exposed from the adhesive layer (see Nakasato Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 5, Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato teach the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the additive module (see Nakasato Fig. 10, particle filler 37) is completely insoluble (because particle filler 37 comprises of silica or alumina (see Nakasato [0142]), and silica and alumina aren’t soluble in adhesive, so the particle filler 37 is completely insoluble in the adhesive layer.) in the adhesive layer (see Lee’A Fig. 3, supporting layer 4; where it shares the same adhesive material as supporting adhesive layer 4 of Lee’B).
With regards to claim 7, Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato teach the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the inner side (see Image A) of the adhesive layer (see Lee’A Fig. 3, supporting layer 4; where it shares the same adhesive material as supporting adhesive layer 4 of Lee’B) has a plurality of dimpled microstructures (see Image A).
With regards to claim 8, Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato teach the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the optical device is a sensor package structure (see Lee’A Fig. 3, sensor package structure 100; Lee’A [0023]), and the electronic component is a sensor chip (see Lee’A Fig. 3, sensor chip 2).
With regards to claim 9, Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato teach the optical device according to claim 8, further comprising: a substrate (see Lee’A Fig. 3, substrate 1; Lee’A [0024]), wherein the electronic component (see Lee’A Fig. 3, sensor chip 2) is disposed on the substrate along a predetermined direction (see Lee’A Fig. 3, predetermined direction D; Lee’A [0028]) and is electrically coupled to the substrate (see Lee’A [0024]: “a plurality of metal wires 3 electrically coupled to the sensor chip 2 and the substrate 1,”); and an encapsulant (see Lee’A Fig. 3, encapsulant 6; Lee’A [0024]) formed on the substrate (see Lee’A Fig. 3), wherein the electronic component, the adhesive layer (see Lee’A Fig. 3, supporting layer 4; where it shares the same adhesive material as supporting adhesive layer 4 of Lee’B), and the light-permeable layer (see Lee’A Fig. 3, light-permeable layer 5) are embedded in the encapsulant (see Lee’A Fig. 3), and the outer surface (see Lee’A Fig. 3, outer surface 53) of the light-permeable layer is at least partially exposed from the encapsulant (see Lee’A Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato, in view of Sato (Pub. No.: US 20120161621 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato teach the optical device according to claim 2.
Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato do not teach that the additive module is made of a light-absorption material, and the inner additives, the shape-formation additives, and the exposed additives have at least two shapes that are different from each other.
Sato teaches an additive module (see Sato Fig. 2, filler particles 41; Sato [0027]) is made of a light-absorption material (see Sato [0027]: “The first filler particles 41 to be settled at the surface 35 side of the sealing member and the above-described second filler particles 45 may be fluorescent particles such as YAG having a relatively large specific gravity.”, where fluorescent particles need to absorb light in order to fluoresce and so is light absorbent material.), and additives (see Sato Fig. 2, filler particles 41) have at least two shapes that are different from each other (see Sato Fig. 2, where can see the additives have at least a triangular shape and a rectangular shape.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the material of the additive module of the combined device of Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato with the fluorescent material taught by Sato in order to further promote light scattering. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to define the shapes of the additives of the combined device of Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato with the shapes taught by Sato in order to further promote light scattering.
Together, Lee’A, Lee’B, Nakasato, and Sato teach that inner additives (see Image B), shape-formation additives (see Image B), and exposed additives (see Image B) have at least two shapes that are different from each other (see Sato Fig. 2, where one can see the additives have at least a triangular shape and a rectangular shape.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’A, Lee’B, Nakasato, and Sato, in view of Luo et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200018881 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Lee’A, Lee’B, Nakasato, and Sato teach the optical device according to claim 3.
Lee’A, Lee’B, Nakasato, and Sato do not teach that the adhesive layer is light-permeable, and wherein, when light travels in the adhesive layer, the additive module absorbs at least part of the light.
Luo teaches that an adhesive layer (see Luo Fig. 2, adhesive layer 5; Luo [0021]) is light-permeable (see Luo Fig. 2 and Luo [0023]: “so that when environmental light irradiates on the surface of supporting assembly 2 and is reflected, the optical filter layer 3 can filter out the reflected light passing through the adhesive layer 5,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to define the adhesive layer of the combined device of Lee’A, Lee’B, Nakasato, and Sato to be light-permeable as taught by Luo in order to allow light to be captured by the additive module (or in the case of Luo, an optical filter layer) and help prevent light from reflecting back into the optical area of the electronic component (see Luo [0027]).
Together, Lee’A, Lee’B, Nakasato, Sato, and Luo teach that when light travels (see Luo Fig. 2 and Luo [0023]) in the adhesive layer (see Lee’A Fig. 3, supporting layer 4; where it shares the same adhesive material as supporting adhesive layer 4 of Lee’B), the additive module (see Nakasato Fig. 10, particle filler 37) absorbs at least part of the light (see Sato [0027], where fluorescent particles absorb at least some light.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato, in view of Yu et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190207154 A1), hereinafter as Yu.
With regards to claim 6, Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato teach the optical device according to claim 1.
Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato do not teach that the optical device is a display mechanism, and the electronic component is a display.
Yu teaches that the optical device is a display mechanism (see Yu Fig. 1, organic light emitting diode encapsulation structure 10; Yu [0034]), and the electronic component is a display (see Yu Fig. 1, organic light emitting diode device 2; Yu [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the electronic component of the combined device of Lee’A, Lee’B, and Nakasato with the electronic component taught by Yu in order to switch from an input of data to an output of data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer has at least two of an L number of buffering cavities, an M number of wave-shaped slots, and an N number of rectangular slots, in which L is a positive integer, and any one of M and N is a positive integer greater than one; wherein, when the adhesive layer has the L number of the buffering cavities, each of the L number of the buffering cavities is arranged in the adhesive layer and penetrates through the adhesive layer along a predetermined direction; wherein, when the adhesive layer has the M number of the wave-shaped slots, the M number of the wave-shaped slots are respectively recessed in the inner side and the outer side of the adhesive layer and penetrate through the adhesive layer along the predetermined direction, and any two of the M number of the wave-shaped slots located adjacent to each other and respectively arranged on the inner side and the outer side are only partially overlapped with each other along a width direction being perpendicular to the predetermined direction; and wherein, when the adhesive layer has the N number of the rectangular slots, the N number of the rectangular slots are respectively recessed in the inner side and the outer side of the adhesive layer and penetrate through the adhesive layer along the predetermined direction, and any two of the N number of the rectangular slots located adjacent to each other and respectively arranged on the inner side and the outer side are not overlapped with each other along the width direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKATERINA T BIRCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached at 5712721657. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.T.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
